This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I can't think of any reason why they would want to dilute by VaDblDmr

their per capita revenue, and that would be inevitable if teams with lesser following are added to the ones they already have in their conferences.

This is of course why Syverud and Gee are conceding up front to unequal revenue distribution, but all that would do is perpetuate what we already have by trimming the sails a little bit.

What I'm envisioning is a world in which the Indianas and Vandys would end up better off than they currently are since they would only effectively be competing with around 40 other schools, all with equal media revenue, instead of 134. It's debatable what the "right" number to land on is, but 70 seems to me to be far too many.

Keep in mind that cutting players in on the media revenue, which is where I think this is headed and where it needs to go, is going to dilute each school's current profit. That's another reason why 70 is too optimistic, even with unequal revenue. Recall, their proposal assumes that the full value of media revenue hasn't been tapped yet, which I think is a little dubious. The article even suggests as much, "One TV executive called the idea that there is a lot more untapped money in the market 'naive.'”